Can Surface be Saved?

Industry watchers and technology enthusiasts like myself will be debating Microsoft’s decision to enter the PC market for years to come, but in the wake of a disastrous Surface launch year a more pressing concern emerges: Can Surface be saved? Or is this brand already too tainted to survive, let alone ever be successful?

I assume you’re familiar with much of the short history of Surface already. And you may recall my early warning signs that something was wrong: I didn’t attend the Surface reveal event in Los Angeles in June 2012 because of the incredibly short notice, during which Microsoft refused to provide even a hint about the content or import of the event. Others who did attend then sought to justify the expense of that last minute travel by pretending to have had “hands-on” time with the devices, when in fact all they could do was very briefly touch non-working prototypes. Put simply, this one stunk right from the get-go.

But rewatching the Surface reveal event now—like everything else these days, it’s available for posterity on YouTube—I see what really set me off originally: Windows head honcho Steve Sinofsky trying to pull off what can only be described as the worst-ever Steve Jobs impersonation. Sinofsky is what I call “wicked smart,” and he certainly had an engineering mindset that I appreciate. But he’s not a vision guy, let alone a Jobs-style salesman. And his part of the Surface reveal event feels forced and stilted to me as a result.

(By comparison, Panos Panay is a vision guy. He’s got that thing that Jobs obviously had, and I’d have to go back to Hillel Cooperman from the Longhorn days to find a guy anything like that at Microsoft. The Surface reveal should have been all Panay.)

Anyway, the Surface got off to a bad start, at least for me. And this mirrored my earlier experience with Zune, which was also launched in a bizarre, hubris-heavy way that showed a distinct lack of humility for a firm that was then, as now, entering a market in which it was simply being dominated. The Zune crashed and burned in the face of the awesome iPod and iTunes. And so far at least, Surface—and, as alarming, the entire ecosystem of Windows 8/RT-based tablets, for that matter—has crashed and burned in the face of simpler and less expensive Android tablets and the iPad.

The parallels with Zune are interesting. In both cases, Microsoft established a new (well, recycled in the case of Surface) brand for a new family of hardware products. In both cases, Microsoft adopted a coopetition model in which it sought to have it both ways by both supporting partner devices and then competing with them head-on with their own. And in both cases—God help us, but it’s true—there were actually real innovations there, useful and distinctive features the competition lacked.

Of course, Surface is a bit more dramatic of a story. Surface runs Windows, and Surface competes with the firms that catapulted Windows to great successes over 20 years, turning this once-humble MS-DOS hosted GUI into Microsoft’s core product. The fear at the time of the reveal event was that Microsoft would alienate these partners by making its own hardware. Some complained, some voiced indifference, and some remained silent. But the events of the past year or so should be troubling to Microsoft. Because actions speak much louder than words.

First, of the few PC and hardware makers that voiced support for Windows RT last year and the subset of those that actually shipped devices, virtually all have completely and publicly backed away from the platform. Indeed, the most successful Windows RT device, by all measures, is Surface RT. And that device required a nearly $1 billion write-off because of poor sales.

Second, more and more PC makers are turning to free Google platforms. Not just Chrome OS, which is a super-cheap/low-risk bet, but also now Android. That latter OS is of course tailored for smart phones and tablets, but if a Windows 8 tablet can become a PC courtesy of a keyboard base, why can’t an Android tablet do the same? Turns out it can. And as that system matures, it will become a more formidable threat to Windows … in the PC market. This is a golden opportunity for PC makers to seek revenge on Microsoft.

What’s really messed up, however, is that Microsoft may actually harm Windows and itself more at this point if it did step away from the Surface brand and stop making its own PC hardware. They’ve already done the damage to their relationships with PC and hardware makers. Killing off Surface would just deprive customers of some of the only truly superior PC hardware out there.

And these devices really are superior. We can debate specifics around battery life, the keyboard choices, the number of ports, the non-adjustable kickstand, or whatever. But these are beautiful and well made products. I previously described them as what a “Pro” line of iPads might look like if Apple were to make such a thing. The industrial design and fit and finish are top notch.

Too, I still believe that this kind of hybrid device—one that combines work and play thematically and tablet and laptop physically—is the future of the PC. Not just the Ultrabook, but the PC. The ability to use and travel with just a single device that does it all is still a dream today. But we can see the future in the Surface and in other hybrid PCs of the past year. Surely, a new generation of Surface PCs (as well as other devices) will get us closer to realizing that promise.

It’s obvious, too, that the dysfunction of Surface mirrors the dysfunction of the Windows 8 and RT OSes which they run. In full-bore Monday Morning Quarterback mode, I think that Windows RT should be relegated to consumption-first devices that lack a desktop environment, and that the next Surface RT device should be the 8-inch Surface Mini we all know is coming. The desktop experience is lousy on these tiny devices. So just get rid of it already, and do so with the platform that makes the most sense.

Then, Microsoft could make two Surface models running Windows 8: A 10-inch model, simply called Surface and running Windows 8 Core, and a 13-inch Surface Pro model with a (detachable) hardware keyboard that would fulfill the need for a true touch-based Ultrabook. Each would be based on some form of Haswell processor, with perhaps an i5 on the mid-level machine and an i7 on the Pro.

The details don’t matter. Ultimately, Surface is a brand and a product line that’s worth saving. I hope that Microsoft gives Surface the time and effort it requires. Its spotty history in the past certainly has me worried that that won’t be the case.

Discuss this Article 75

1. I think PC makers started to switch to Android before news of the Surface came out. The Surface might have hastened it, but it was happening nevertheless.

2. Surface is more important to Microsoft than Zune ever was. The PMP market was starting to die, with smartphones replacing them. The Tablet market is ripe for growth.

3. I agree that Windows RT should be a consumption device. Hopefully the introduction of metro Office will finally kill the desktop on RT devices.

4. It's sad the way things have turned out for Surface RT. It makes a great companion device and is a great bet for students. Bad marketing, bad pricing, and bad performance killed the original device.

5. I agree about Microsoft's hubris. Microsoft could have taken a loss initially to boost marketshare instead of announcing one year later that they had taken a writeoff. With Sinofsky now gone, maybe they won't repeat those mistakes.

I do not agree that Windows RT should be a consumption device with no desktop. If anything, Microsoft should have let "legacy" apps be compiled for it, especially since so many things are missing from the WinRT api. Microsoft's biggest mistake so far is not allowing a slow migration, but rather forcing everyone to change to WinRT all at once.

While I believe that Metro could eventually become a decent tablet UI, the question is why would anyone use it? Microsoft charges a large amount for it. If Microsoft were competent at hardware, they could go out (entirely) on their own like Apple... but they are not, so that point is moot. While not selling anywhere near enough, Microsoft has at least shown there is a market for hybrids using its Surface Pro. (Other OEMs have also had some small success there.) People wanting hybrids are clearly interested in having some productivity capability, and at least with Microsoft, that means full Windows 8.

However, the matter has gotten more complicated. I had earlier this year had hoped that Intel would be shipping Bay Trail at a level that was competitive to ARM in speed, power and price. On this site, I speculated that Bay Trail might help Microsoft with acceptance as it should be able to run full Windows 8 acceptably. Alas, it looks like Intel is going to let us all down again. (See: http://computingcompendium.blogspot.com/2013/08/arm-and-intel-news.html for details.) This creates a bad situation for Microsoft Windows as a tablet OS. Windows RT (which is ARM only) is too weak to be used as a standalone OS on a tablet... what would attract buyers? Windows 8 is hefty. The Bay Trail chips that will be shipping likely won't handle it very well. Thus, Windows 8 tablets and hybrids will be restricted to having to have fans with all of the compromises that the Surface Pro had. In other words, do not expect the very devices that Windows 8 was (mis)designed for to sell better this holiday season than they did last season. In fact, given all the new alternatives, they probably will sell worse.

HP is about to launch an Android $400 21" all-in-one/tablet on your wall. They just launched a $479 Android hybrid that runs for 18 hours on a single charge. That's just HP now, there are many other OEMs with things that will roll out over the next couple of months. Also, Chrome Packaged Apps are now coming online, that will allow developers to write apps that run under Windows, Linux, MacOS and ChromeOS. Chrome Packaged Apps will remove the final barriers from ChromeOS being a "real" desktop/laptop (and probably tablet) solution. Key Lime Pie (October) will no doubt being putting final touches on Android keyboard/mouse usage. Quick Office should be rolling out about then, along with a new line of ChromeOS devices. Android and iOS are supposed to be able to run Chrome Packaged Apps sometime this year.

You've said it before but maybe you didn't want to repeat it here but I'll do it for you. While the Surface devices are nice they were too expensive for what they were. I know, I know race to the bottom, blah, blah, blah. The reality is that I would be using a surface right now if they had released it at a cheaper price. Heck my boss would have picked up Pro's for everyone in our team if they would have been cheaper...instead we had to go with something else. In the food industry when you introduce something new you price it low (introductory price) to get it out and allow the adventurous to try it. NO idea why MS didn't do this. You'd think after the Zune fiasco they'd learn that you DON'T enter a market and expect to dominate in the first year...especially if the market leader has YEARS of experience. MS needs to wakeup and realize this isn't 2001 anymore.

This is not a simple issue. The $500 starting price point for the iPad was/is simply too high for what that device is. Putting Surface RT there too was a disaster.

That said, $1400 PCs are not a sustainable business either. I appreciate Microsoft trying to put something of value out there, but reversing buying trends and re-educating customers about that is hard or impossible.

Surface Mini needs to be $200ish. Surface RT could/should have started at $350. Surface Pro was a $600 to $800 no-brainer. At $900 and up, it's just too expensive.

Totally agree with Paul. It was all about price. The hardware itself is beautiful & Windows 8 is actually great on touch devices. But for a new-entrant in a crowded market, the Surfaces were "priced to sit on shelves"... and they did.

Couldn't Microsoft sell the hardware at cost, charge itself for the OS, and then still make money off of app sales? Wouldn't this still be a profitable business model... especially if they were selling millions and millions of these things?

"Couldn't Microsoft sell the hardware at cost, charge itself for the OS, and then still make money off of app sales?"

Yes, yes they could. I've been arguing for this case scenario for both Windows Phone and Windows since 2010. This is exactly how Google is dominating: give the OS for free, make money on app revenues. Who cares if you're not making other money on hardware? Making less money from apps instead of HW/OS is exponentially better than NOT making any money or even losing some because your devices aren't even selling.

If MS stops being so archaic and starts not charging for WP/Win8 OS, I guarantee you more OEMs will come to the platform since it costs them nothing, ergo more users will buy Win-based products since they will be cheaper, ergo more devs will come to the platform since the user base will increase, ergo MS will make much more money from app sales even if they sold their own HW at cost.

YES. 100% correct. I myself didn't end up buying a Surface RT because $600 for a Tegra THREE (!!!) was laughable - I ended up with a VivoTab RT for $350 (much earlier than the Surface price cuts) that has served me well the past 6 months. However I still want a Surface: although the one I would REALLY want is the Surface 3 from next year which would logically be based on Tegra 5 aka Logan (which is based on the same Kepler architecture from desktop GPUs), if released at $350 I can see myself buying a Surface RT every-single-year and giving the "old" model to family members as gifts. $350 isn't exactly peanuts, but it's cheap enough that I could renew yearly.

Oh, $350 for ASUS RT?
In my country ASUS priced VivoTab RT (with keyboard) for $1200.
Twelve hundreds US dollars! As much as MacBook Air!
$1200 for Tegra а with 720p display!
And now they crying for bad revenue.

I think $350 is still too high. Again, not because the Surface isn't worth every bit as much as an iPad, but because the consumer doesn't view it that way (yet).

Microsoft should've started with a "gain market share" strategy from the beginning (Xbox), instead of a "make a nice profit on each device like Apple" strategy (Zune). Low prices would've brought huge sales. Huge sales would've attracted developers & apps. Apps would've attracted more sales... which would've allowed them (over time) to gradually increase the price. It just seems so obvious... and it seemed obvious to a lot of us a year ago.

Microsoft is under some grand illusion that people view it the same way as they view Apple. They do not. Most people choose Windows because it's more functional & more affordable than Apple products. We didn't start seeing commercials comparing the two until recently. Why? Because Microsoft can be incredibly stupid sometimes. They have Apple-envy... and it's sad. Microsoft really needs to appreciate (and live by) the advice, "Be yourself."

I am curious as to what you think a fair and reasonable profit margin is for hardware. Most PC OEMs who are profitable squeak by with a few percent profit margin. Lenovo was under 2% last quarter when they had their best sales figures ever.

The prices you list sound nice, but are they sustainable?

The $200 mini tablets you mention are generally sold at cost(Fire, Nexus, etc.), while surface RTs are at $350, now that MS wrote of almost $1B. Can MS even make a Surface Pro for $600? Most of the BOM estimates come in right around the $600 mark.

This is why Microsoft should be the ONLY one making RT devices... so they can sell at (or near) cost without stepping on the toes of OEMs.

So here's how I see it. Let's say the hardware & manufacturing costs for the Surface RT are $225. Then Microsoft charges itself $25 for the OS (so they'll still make $25 from the sale of each RT), and then also gets a cut from all app sales. So, basically, Microsoft would still be making the same amount of money as if an OEM had built the tablet & Microsoft just sold them the OS.

So, imagine that a Surface RT 32GB is selling for $250 & the 64GB for $299. How do you think they would sell? A heckuva lot better, right?

Suddenly, if Microsoft is selling millions of RTs, developers would be interested in creating RT apps, and the platform would take off. Also, keep in mind that all of these sales would be NEW sales and increasing Microsoft's footprint in mobile (a footprint that barely existed a year ago).

Once the platform gains apps and market share, then Microsoft could gradually raise the price... just like they did for Xbox. If they started creating lots of high-end, exclusive Xbox games (like Spartan's Assault), then they could raise the price even higher and faster... since consumers would have a heightened reason to choose a Windows tablet--it has the best games.

Paul, you're not an ignorant fanboy so what's with the fantasy pricing? You're arguing that surface deserves to exist as a high quality device and then you say "and btw, they should cost $350 for an RT and $600-800 for a Pro." So a tablet with an i5 processor, 4GB, an SSD, and a Wacom digitizer should cost less than something with a much cheaper arm chip, less RAM, and no digitizer? There's very little margin at the prices you list. And don't forget MS doesn't have the economies of scale Apple has as a hardware manufacturer. There's a reason why MBAs can be the quality they are at the price they are. Ultrabooks on the PC side have difficulty matching that level of quality at the same price because none of them sell enough units of the same model to get the pricing that apple gets. And if they're selling it as a low margin device, what is the point?

It was obviously a mistake to manufacture as many RTs as they did, but I don't think this is the disaster that some are making it out to be. Sure MS lost some money in the short run, but that pales compared to the revenues they could eventually bring in with Surface as long as they don't settle for worthless margins.

I think that one of their biggest issues was lack of distribution at launch. It just wasn't released into enough channels and it's hard to get sales when the number of places you can buy it is extremely limited. I think it was a bit a bad move to spend as much as they did on marketing for a product that was unavailable in most places. Things should be quite a bit better once the BB partnership kicks in.

I think v2 will eliminate the biggest negatives of Surface (both RT and Pro), but I totally agree that they need to kill the desktop on RT ASAP. Having it just encourages negative press because people review it as something it's not. The Pro is awesome already. Add keyboard+battery accessory and longer battery life plus slightly lighter weight, a place to put the pen, and drop windows 8.1 on there and there will really be nothing to complain about in future reviews.

They should've used the Xbox strategy that worked (sell a premium product at a loss to gain market share) instead of the Zune strategy that failed (sell a premium product at a premium). Sadly, they made the same mistake as Zune, and now Surface is a tainted brand--tainted with the stench of failure... and consumers will steer clear. Consumers want a "hot" product, not one that's in the bargain bin because no one wants it.

It's okay to sell at a loss in the beginning, because everyone understands that you're entering a competitive market and want to gain market share. Now, however, the perception isn't "the Surface is new," but "the Surface is a dud." And that's the problem.

As an early adopter, it makes me mad that Microsoft screwed this up when they had a perfectly good business model in the early Xbox strategy, and they chose the failed Zune one instead.

Can Surface be saved? Maybe, if the enterprise (which is less fickle than consumers) decides to give them a try... after a couple years of testing... but by that time, Microsoft might've given up on the brand altogether. Oh, well...

Agree, Xbox was sold at a loss for some time....now considered one if not THE dominant player in the market. Maybe with surface they could introduce a third tier to the 10" range 16gig, 32gig, 64gig (or something equivalent) and price them against their proper Android equivalent NOT Apple...whose market base is happy to pay a premium (for alleged quality). Or point of difference...the keyboard is incorporated in the price...

What they should've done is release Windows 8 on desktops (& non-touch laptops) with NO METRO interface, UNLESS a user chose to toggle it on to experiment with it.

Meanwhile, release the Surface RT with NO DESKTOP whatsoever... & no Office software, but with the promise that a touch-based Office was in the works.

Finally, the Surface Pro (and other Intel-powered Windows 8 devices) would've come with the Windows 8 we all recognize--Metro at start-up, but with the desktop tacked on for devices that could handle legacy software.

These steps might've made things a little clearer to the consumer--Metro is for tablets, but Windows 8 also runs on desktops without the Metro clutter (unless you wanted it). This, I think, would've totally changed how consumers viewed Metro. Suddenly, it wouldn't have been "that thing that's always in the way" and instead became "a glimpse at where Microsoft was headed." It might've actually made people curious about Metro, instead of loathing it.

But we can't go back in time and change any of this, so what's the best that Microsoft can do? Probably exactly what they're doing--fixing Windows 8 & slashing the price of Surface tablets.

Android won't take off in the PC space. too little apps and it faces the same problem windows faces with its phone OS: entrenched companies dominate.

you can put a mouse keyboard on an android device, but the ecosystem will suck. no apps, not peripheral support, no enterprise support.

Android also lacks a server OS which windows benefits from hugely. The client/server+ active directory all working in harmony is something android cannot not pull in a decade, much less convince people to switch.

ultimately, android has failed in the chromebook space twice. They have failed in the 10 inch table space twice, with the nexus 10 having sold less than RT, and with the initial push to the 10 inch tablet before the nexus 10.

Android remains king of the race to the bottom at the phone and small tablet game because that is all that it can ever hope to be as neither segment had any competition until android defined it. Thanks in part to apple sleeping at the wheel, and to the disaster that windows phone was due to Joe B's horrible management.

Currently surface and windows 8 tablets are a much bigger deal than large android tablets which still going nowhere after years of trying, and with the advances in chips from intel, android will simply collapse in the laptop/large tablet segment due to its inability to be a full desktop OS as it can't run x86 apps...let's not forget, the largest ecosystem of apps ever made...dwarfing iOS and android COMBINED.

Now that Microsoft has dipped its toe into the hardware pool, there's no turning back. They need to do a canon ball into the deep end and release more products... and fast.

My recommendations:

1-Buy Dell. It's clear that Microsoft's OEM partners are looking for other options, but the reality is that (for the near future) they still need Windows to sell real PCs. Nothing would scare the hell out of them that Microsoft is considering moving on without us than Microsoft buying Dell... and that might be enough to bring them back to the negotiating table. In short, the OEMs still need Microsoft... just like Microsoft needs them.

2-Buy BlackBerry. The patents alone are worth the price. But Microsoft could then start building Windows Phones & tablets built on BlackBerry hardware and aimed directly at the enterprise, while leaving Nokia to continue its assault on the consumer end.

3-Limit RT to smaller tablets & (eventually) to Windows Phones... and scrap the desktop once the touch version of Office launches. Also, give Windows RT a name that makes sense like... "Windows Mobile"... which will eventually power tablets & phones.

I don't think Microsoft should buy Blackberry. At this point Nokia is doing more for Windows Phone than any other OEM or even Microsoft. It makes more sens to ensure the success of this partnership. If Nokia gives into pressure from shareholders and switches to Android, that is effectively the end of Windows Phone.

This is a very reasonable, logical, and far-sighted recommendation - exactly the thing that Microsoft will IGNORE! it takes real nerves of steel (or something like that) to go all in like this, but with a real manufacturing powerhouse (Dell), an entrenched phone player (Blackberry) and a superior design partner in Nokia, Microsoft could be the bullyboy on the block, and not just another..."may I have some more porridge?" scraper from the Apple/Google table.

Surface RT can be saved by being what the Nexus tablets are to Google: low cost devices while still being the one to beat.

RT v1.0 was ludicrously expensive for what it was and while the discount price is more acceptable, that's what it should've been priced at initially with the current discount bringing it down to $200-250 to really gain some marketshare.

Though then that could have cannibalised Windows 8 sales at a very important time with RT essentially being Win8 sans extra programs... You're absolutely right that RT should be consumption only, having essentially full Windows and Office on there seems to be a dumb move imo. Needed for gen 1 devices to generate uptake but that probably needs to stop once Office Metro is available.

As you say, an 8" Surface mini running RT8.1 would be a great way to push adoption. It just needs a price that competes with the new Nexus 7 and ideally something else to separate it such as a digitiser so it can also compete with the Galaxy Note too.

As for Surface Pro, I'd like to see a Core version running the next Atom processor too so there can be a decent 10" fan-less Surface running full Windows. Though I suppose if Intel have those fan-less Haswell prototypes knocking around that would work too.

A big thing would for it to just be available everywhere almost instantly when it launches. Surface Pro only appeared in the UK a few months ago (at a very reasonable price, despite what a lot of people who are clearly used to paying £400 for an i5 laptop that weighs more than a car may say) but they can't afford to wait till next May to launch the Pro 2.

The Surface Mini needs to be EVERYWHERE. With 8.1 they have an OS that seems almost complete and an app store that, while still lacking, is picking up the pace. It's a very viable product just so long as they don't screw it up by making it $300+ and only available exclusively via US Microsoft stores for three months...

I just can't help but think that it's always like this for Microsoft... it always takes their second major effort to start listening and getting people interested, and then their third major effort for domination and success.

So God willing, their 2nd generation Surfaces will be really decent and then have a 3rd generation when it truly becomes the ultimate experience.

Mind you, I love my Surface Pro and using it combined with the Lumia 1020 allows me to nearly achieve that one-device mindset... I just don't think I'll ever want something "big" for a phone, but having all my content synced on both means I never have to settle.

Paul: Good article and one that I fully agree with. One point that is related, and which I'm not sure, is whether Microsoft really understands the market it is trying to capture. Mu concerns:

1. You have repeatedly emphasized that the ecosystem counts! Though improving, has the W8 ecosystem really advanced against Android and iOS - I'm not convinced it is competitive even after about a year.

2. I have also expressed, to the ridicule of several readers, that Microsoft priced themselves out of the market. W8 and WRT were priced as business tools, not consumer tools. I'm not sure the recent price reductions are enough. Given the price of Android competitors, the RT still may be overpriced. And where are the mid-priced models?

3. There is also the time factor. This market is moving quickly. Given where the market is today (with a much more aggressive and able low-mid price competitor (Android/Chrome)), I think the argument could be made that Microsoft is in a more troubling competitive position than they were last year.

4. And last is execution. Given Microsoft's track record, is there confidence that Microsoft really can get this right this time?

Though a committed Microsoft user, I'm more pessimistic than I've been in a long while about the competitive position of Windows.

The goal is always to extend the user-experience and extend the desktop to the mobile user with little or no difference. The iPad can do that for Apple offices, but not for the Windows enterprise, which most of us use. Droid tablets aren't there either.

If the next version of the Surface Pro has the purported slide-in docking station and increased horse power, replacing desktops is a logical assumption, assuming the price point stays sub-$800.

If I remember correctly didn't MS mention that Surface was to be a "reference" device and that they weren't trying to compete with the hardware ecosystem. If so why did they build so many ?

MS has stated publicly and with the recent reorg - that they will transform into a device and services company. If so I agree with your comment about the impact of walking away. The ecosystem partners are desperate for something to compete against iPad to try and increase sales and with the success of android on phone platforms and the lack of a successful MS solution in that space - android is their route for right now.

As a "device" company, MS does not appear to be reacting very quickly to the some of the new technologies. Apple for example already has a Haswell based device with NGFF PCI-e storage and 802.11ac support on the market. Sure it's not touch - but if MS was really serious they would have either a) already announced their next gen device or B) have it in the marketplace. They have done neither.

Finally if MS is truly going to be a device and services company - then they need a complete device line up - so a phone, tablet/hybrid and ultrabook as well as an improved marketplace. Right now Apple and Google are kicking their ass in the space in terms of selection and sales and while there are certainly aspects of Windows Phone and Surface that are compelling - the recent execution has been horrible.

"I think that Windows RT should be relegated to consumption-first devices that lack a desktop environment"

Sorry Paul, the desktop on RT is one of the jewels of the platform. I've never understood the irrationality of those clambering for its removal. The ability to browse a network or plug in storage devices and utilize both just like I would on a desktop is huge plus.

Abandoning the desktop doesn't necessarily mean abandoning some of the features. Just like they're porting Office over to Metro and some of the control panel settings to Metro, I am hoping network browsing etc will be available in metro in the next iteration.

Case in point, the Metro SkyDrive app in 8.1 already sees some of my network shares, under This PC. I can't open them at this point, but their existence makes me believe the intent is there. Since they will be renaming SkyDrive anyway, in this case File Manager might work.

Microsoft's gamble on remaking itself into a hardware company worries me, not so much for the sake of Surface, but for Office. I fear that driving consumers to any other platform is a threat to Office. My hope is that none of the people involved in Win8 and Surface departments will ever touch Office.

Am I the only one that think Microsoft didn't do a bad job on marketing the Surface? In the UK, there were ads all over the place. Lots of people were talking about it.

The problem was that there was nowhere physical to try it and buy it. Now they are available in stores but I believe most consumers go and buy a new device at the start of a new school year or Christmas.

They've got a great price reduction for students now but they really need to push better hardware and lower prices this Christmas or it will end up being another Windows Phone i.e. surviving but only just.

I know I'd buy a new Silvermont based Surface in a heartbeat: the Pro I just outlined is a bit too much for my use on the go, but an Atom Surface that rocks all Metro stuff and allows me to use x86 old programs sometimes even if they're a bit slower?

I think there's a lot of potential for the Surface Pro and/or Surface Ultrabook Convertible in the enterprise, and here's why. I work at a major bank in New York, and because space is always a concern in Manhattan, most employees are required to work from home at least one day per week. Because of this, we are each assigned a laptop... which means we do not have desktop PCs and most of us do not have assigned seats. Instead, each day, we come in and dock our laptop at a different station. Most of us also have BlackBerrys for the same reason (those days we work from home). I've heard that other Manhattan banks are experimenting with a similar system.

This is a perfect opportunity for Microsoft to bundle Surface Pro tablets and Windows Phones for these types of companies. Most of these businesses are already using Microsoft on the front and back ends, so it makes perfect sense to use Surface tablets & Windows Phones. I hope Microsoft realizes this.

Making the Surface RT a pure consumption (or almost pure consumption) device, with, hopefully, Metro versions of Office or other productivity suites around the corner is a no-brainer.

What they absolutely MUST do in "re-launching" the Surface RT is to re-brand. People legitimately debate whether WinRT is good as a concept, or potentially good in a 2.0 version. What there seems to be unanimous agreement on, is that branding a device "Windows RT" was insane. It is meaningless and extremely confusing. They could kill two birds with one stone by releasing a "Windows RT 2.0" Surface Tablet and ditching the "Windows RT" name in the process. The device can be saved, the brand is mud.

Microsoft's biggest problems with the surface were the lack of ability to walk into a store or go online (to let say Newegg) and buy a device. Then, we have their marketing. If you were not a geek how followed Microsoft, would you even know what the early click ads were about? Microsoft was giving you a glimpse of a new operating system no one had seen on a device no one had every seen. For most people I would guess the ads left them wondering what that was about. Maybe fun but not very informative.

Apple has won in the phone and table market with good devices and great marketing. Microsoft seem to be able to develop great devices then has no idea how to market them.

"I think that Windows RT should be relegated to consumption-first devices that lack a desktop environment"

Here's one scenario where the RT works as more than a consumption device: Education. At the current price of $349 + $129 for a touch keyboard, the Surface RT is a great bet for students looking for a basic laptop to do web browsing, run a few apps and work on Word, PPT, Excel, etc. I definitely think Microsoft should keep that option alive. Granted some Atom tablets might be cheaper, but they don't come with Office. Also, the first gen RT device had a great battery life. I'm not sure how it compares to Atom. What such a device needs, however is:

Another thing is that if Microsoft wants to save the Surface brand, they should avoid having a fire sale on the 1st gen tablets. My guess is that the $900M writeoff was for more than just the $150 price cut. It would be terrible for their PR if they did another writeoff just a couple of months after the first one.

I don't think you should discount the benefit that Windows 8.1 is going to be for the next generation of Surface devices. It's a much better experience (both on the desktop and on the Surface/tablet). And it comes with "Help/Tips/Tutorials" available. It fixes a lot of the missteps and gaps in Windows 8.

With the new Intel chips, I think the next generation will be rather desirable.

I really like Windows 8, so I'm not sure why the Surface isn't taking off? Certainly, it's a hell of a lot better than Google's Android, a virtual clone of iOS. I don't own a tablet, but if I were to buy one it would definitely be either an iPad or a Surface. Hopefully, Microsoft can fix this soon, otherwise the longer it waits the bleaker it looks for the Surface.

Microsofts biggest mistake was trusting Nvidia. Tegra 3 was flop in every level. Again Microsoft pretty much wasted resources since Windows Phone team was busy optimising kernel to Qualcomm chipset. Double work = half results, typical Microsoft management. But now Microsoft has ground work done in all major chipset manufacturers. Also they have great brand. I can see Microsoft downplaying Surface in future.

PT: "Ultimately, Surface is a brand and a product line that’s worth saving."
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see that. I did some checking with some non-tech friends.. they don't even know that Zune or Surface ever existed. [But they do know what Android and iPhone/iPad/iPod is and own some of each.] That's after Microsoft spent billions trying to capture them. Ask yourself, what changes for the non-Microsoft world if Surface disappears like Zune did? The answer is: nothing.

Microsoft should quit playing in hardware and make Enterprise level tools for Android and iOS.

This weekend I went out and bought a 2G Nexus 7. It's a wonderful device with a gorgeous screen, great performance and a really nice eco-system. The thing that keeps gnawing at me: WHY CAN'T MICROSOFT DO THIS? I paid a little over $250 out the door with tax (TN sales tax is 9.75%), and this thing is the best performing tablet out right now.

Put simply, Microsoft needs to release a Surface Mini with at least the same specs as the Nexus 7 at a similar price point. They need to get over this idea that the products can compete at the same price point at Apple's. While the Surface is a beautiful piece of hardware, it doesn't stand a chance in the marketplace with a seriously hamstrung eco-system at even its current discounted pricepoint.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More